-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Steve Bratt writes:
> I was ready to say "go ahead". Then there has been a flurry of
> emails with this same subject line that I simply do not have time to
> follow and understand. I've asked PLH and Henry to summarize the
> state and conclusion of these, and have not heard back yet. What is
> the issue?
The PER request is for XML Base, but the email exchange is mostly
about XLink.
Half the exchange is about timing of RFCs, and the rest is about
whether SVG should reference LEIRIs or IRIs. But that's a discussion
for SVG.
None of the exchange is about the XML Base PER.
In other words, none of the exchange actually bears on the question of
whether XML Base should go to PER -- rather it's discussion stimulated
by people having their attention called to the new draft RFC.
I still don't think we need a call, and that we can go ahead with
publication on 20 March. In other words, I think if we _had_ a call,
we would decide that none of the email exchange actually addressed the
entry conditions to PER, and so we would decide to go ahead. It would
just slow us down to the point where we miss the publication
moratorium.
ht
- --
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFH39c6kjnJixAXWBoRAu1YAJ4wjcn5rCKW8xaRQutT5y0ebi7mVQCfWKcU
eTGIi/bRM6hUg4O6Jx8fC/c=
=KpOo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----